Well if introducing new technology into third world countries will mean they are now used to it and have to have it, and so its bad, surely the same logic would apply in europe and north america? If we invent some better stuff, better video games, better quality movies, better gadgets, nicer foods etc, people will get used to that and they will be like the child who was introduced to the snickers in the earlier analogy, so for the good of the west we need to stop all technological developments and as we are the engineers making all of this technology we should go on strike and demand people try to get used to living back in the stone age and wean themselves off of all of this unnecessary technology

 

The reality is that the first world wants what the developing world has - cheap labour and resources. Once those living in the developing world realize that they are being ripped-off, they try to get in it too. Maybe you know the saying, if you can't kill'em, join em?

Development is a natural process, and for some, development does not mean joining the ranks of EE or electronic gadget consumers, for some it means spiritual development, sitting on a river bank or an ocean shore watching the water...

so what if the developing world get in on it too?

Also, spirtual/religious development and economic/material development are not mutually exclusive

 

Also we should advocate the total destruction of all our military weapons and technology and the abolishment of the arms industry as that is technology and technology is bad

 

It is hard to follow you. Ripping off natural resources? Turning ALL countries into wastelands? Using Africa as a garbage dump for the wonderfully useful technology? My workplace got some old computers in storage, marked "for Africa", I guess that is progress, at least they are running.

Lets see... egyptians built the pyramids, the modern men poisoned the water, filled space with junk, and dug holes everywhere, quite an engineering achievement. Note that in South America many people stand against the promise of the "better future" that the technology brings as it will rob them of what they have - a traditional way of life, with no alcohol, no 8-5, and with clean land intact.

Best wishes to you too.
____________________________________________

Strantor, I know what you are talking about. Saw same thing in Jamaica. We talked to a guy who took us on a bamboo raft along the river. It turned out that how their work is distributed, he basically can only work 20-40 days out of the year as the whole season is split between many people. We asked him if he fishes or does something else, he smiled a gorgeous smile and said - why? Basically people do not work unless they have to, and their "have to" has a drastically different meaning i.e. I got food and shelter, what else is there? (basically that is my definition as well, but I need some money to travel).

 

Also we should advocate the total destruction of all our military weapons and technology and the abolishment of the arms industry as that is technology and technology is bad

Well that would be a good start.

 

Speaking of phillipines, what about all of those underage girls who prostitute themselves to bring a better standard of living to their famlies.

Watch some documentaries on human trafficking:

Sex Slaves - Ukraine
The Day My God Died - India
Flesh: The Movie - prostitution in the US

might help with your perspective a bit

children are abducted, parents are convinced that their children will be receiving education somewhere, young girls are convinced they are off to a modelling career, etc... NONE of them are doing it to better a standard of their living. These people live in poverty, but they are not ashamed or resentful of their condition. Their situation is being used to feed the depraved rich natives and, for the large part, sex tourists from the west.

You got a lot to learn.

 

justtrying, I have an open mind and will look at the documentaries and see if it changes my opinions at all.

It sounds massively hypocritical for you all to be on the internet and electronic engineers living in the west or at least amateur enthusiasts and sitting there saying the third world would be better off without it, but whether or not its hypocritical doesnt really do anything to help anyone I guess so no point trying to change anyones mind.

I see the benefit of engineering and have no doubt that when the meteorites are headed for earth or some other catastrophe, people will all run to the engineers, nut if I'm the only one on this forum who sees the benefit in the works of Thomas Edison, Brunel, Einstein, Newton and the others, I guess its a losing battle, although this absolutely astonishes me.

Guess I'll keep the convo's restricted to amateur electronics in future.

Was interesting to see peoples reaction to the idea of developing the third world though, never thought Id see people try to make excuses for keeping the third world devastated and desolate whilst living in luxury themselves, submitting nothing but hearsay evidence of some guy you met or your perceived experience when you were small as proof.

I think the massive resolutions taking place in many countries right now clearly show people are unhappy and want responsible leaders who will move society forward but I guess if you wont see that people need better standards of living I wont be bale to convince you after 7 pages of discussion.

Thanks for engaging and sharing your POVs and links etc for me to watch and I guess Id be interested in seeing if anyone elses is astonished at what they are reading here or if this is a general consensus at the forum, Im hoping that a silent majority exist somewhere here.

Guess thats it for me on this thread unless anything new gets added

 

I will give this another shot, because I feel that morality is the greatest virtue an engineer must have (if not every human being).

I won't try to change your views, but I ask of you to do the following exercise each time you see an "underdeveloped" country struggling with internal problems:
Try to come up with a link between that problem and the effort of some western "developed" country to extract wealth from that country. You don't have to think it's real or credible, just try to imagine it.
It's always good to try to keep both terms of an argument in mind.

To answer your previous question, yes, I would like the technology arms race to take a step back. Arms, car technology, chemicals, pharmaceuticals and semiconductors are sectors which I feel that push the humanity towards a future it cannot understand or control.
On the other hand, I don't have a problem with space exploration or energy autonomy.

I understand all too well that you can't have the latter without the former. And this is where I call morality to make the right decisions at the right time with respect to the happiness of man, not his comfort or his satisfaction.

As for why I 'm involved in electronics, I do it not because I seek a good job or because I want to create a bright future. I do it because the creative procedure fascinates me just like a painter loves painting.

 

Many of the things you say are non sequitur. No one is talking about keeping developments and discoveries in science and technology away from other cultures. But you would have to convince me on how the latest HDTV or XBOX Kinect game will improve the quality of life in a culture that does not even have electrical power, for example.

Modern technology comes with a price. It builds societies that are less resilient. When the power goes out, it will be people living in the metropolis who will suffer the most. People without modern conveniences know how to live with less and will cope.

Our modern society is not sustainable. Life on the planet will be dramatically different 50 years from now.

It sounds massively hypocritical for you all to be on the internet and electronic engineers living in the west or at least amateur enthusiasts and sitting there saying the third world would be better off without it, but whether or not its hypocritical doesnt really do anything to help anyone I guess so no point trying to change anyones mind.

I see the benefit of engineering and have no doubt that when the meteorites are headed for earth or some other catastrophe, people will all run to the engineers, nut if I'm the only one on this forum who sees the benefit in the works of Thomas Edison, Brunel, Einstein, Newton and the others, I guess its a losing battle, although this absolutely astonishes me.

What I disagree with is your self-righteous belief that your way of life is better and hence the rest of the world must follow suit. Evangelical missionaries do the same thing.

I am not trying to change your mind. One day, the energy crisis and global warming will do it.

 

Georacer, the problem with your post is that it assumes that I think the western countries are heroes that are out saving the world and that we are so great and modern and sophisticated that we need to "help" everyone else be like us. I already know the damage we've done, the exploitation we're involved in, the bad intentions we've had in many of our dealings. I already agree that we've really messed other countries up in our pursuit of minerals and fossil fuels.

All I'm saying is that SOME of the technology we have could be good for humanity if used in the correct manner. If we were to rewind right back to the caveman times, and look through our history since then, surely you will agree, some inventions HAVE made humanity better off, fire, houses, medicines, hunting weapons etc. You can't seriously believe mankind should not have ANY sort of developments at all. I agree things need to be done differently.

So you at least agree on the benefits of energy production and space exploration. So who should conduct that space exploration? Should zimbabwe ever hope to do it? or should russia and the US always hold the position of space explorers?

Incidentally, to the person who said it's a countries right to prevent immigration, how do you propose to do that without modern technology? our border controls use DNA testing technology, finger prints, biometrics, passports with authentication measures and huge computer databases.Without modern technology it's pretty easy to smuggle yourself into other countries.

Just so we'rd absolutely clear and fully understand each other, going back to the hypothetical situation, are you all saying (please each individually answer this), that if Zimbabwe had their revolution, got rid of mugabe, elected a great man as president, change was buzzing in the air, the country was calling for diaspora to make investments and development projects back home and to do all they can for zimbabwe, are you saying you would do NOTHING (except tell them they are better off with no technology), or are you saying that you would be SELECTIVE in what development projects you would work on and invest in, and if the latter, which projects would you and wouldn't you involve yourself in?

ALSO, looking at one particular example, how would zimbabwe defend itself from the exploitation problems and interference from forein countries that you mentioned without any sort of defense program? A certain nameless country,for example, actually has a record of coups, i.e. overthrowing DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED governments that didn't serve that nameless countries interests and replaced that ruler with an autocrat, that had happened numerous times in the last 100 years, not to mention the arming of militias in order to acquire diamonds, and full blown military invasions. How would you protect yourself from this?

Would you advocate leaving the conditions of the roads and water treatment facilities and pharmaceutical production and hospital treatments and technologies as they are?

Would you reject the suggested idea from earlier of silicon refinement as an industry to create jobs and establish a basic entry into the electronics market? No computers, no internet etc?



Oh and my way of life is not dictated by my job or the technology that I use, I dont live a typical British way of living, this isn't about the spread of culture or idea's or religious beliefs or way of life, its about providing technology, jobs, equipment and such like to people who want it. I wouldnt want to go destroying villages to build some hydroelectric dam or something, only providing things that the people actually want. I have friends from third world countries and I often talk about these topics with them and they all say they would love for people to come to their country and make invetsments and help bring the country forward as long as those people don't come to serve anyone elses agenda and come purely for love of those people and to serve those peoples needs. I have friends from pakistan who complain about power outages, somalia who talk about lack of reservoir systems to protect them from drought, and many other countries too ho talk about the things they would like to see in their country and that their people back home would like to see and I've never met anyone who says they would like to live in the dark ages or don't want any sort of development back home, never in my life have i heard this and if anything, its not me who is being self righteous here or who would be seen that way by others from those countries but ad hominems don't have a place in a civilised intellectual discussion so I'll say no more on that.

 

Please leave political paradigms out of the conversation. Political talk is not allowed in AAC and this rule I will enforce.

All I am saying is that I wholeheartedly wish that every person in this globe gets whatever he needs to be happy, not whatever he wants to be happy.

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Ok sure I'm sure this conversation can continue without political issues being dragged in (could you define political paradigm just to ensure that nothing gets mentioned that may be in breach of the rules).

I agree with what your saying that technology should be for NEEDS and not WANTS but we can't say that should only apply to people in the third world because it would be too tough on first worlders to make them go back to no XBoxes and iPhones. That would have to be a universally applied principle and so we'd all have to advocate the abolition of sattelite TV and mobile phones, we'd need a clear definition of what constitutes a need vs a want, would a space program be a need or a want?

p.s. i would remind you that you were the one who asked me about the involvement in western countries in exploitation, I didn't really want to go there personally but you asked and i didnt want to give the impression I advocate anything other than what I outlined in my previous post so felt inclined to address your request

 

I think I 'm ok with need vs want applied globally.

By "political" I mean any discussion content that might pitch members against each other, in order to defend their vote choices and side affiliations. Also remember that the forum is international.

Popular taboo words are "Obama" and "republicans".

 

it would be too tough on first worlders to make them go back to no XBoxes and iPhones. That would have to be a universally applied principle and so we'd all have to advocate the abolition of sattelite TV and mobile phones,

Really? Many of us here grew up without it and I`m sure they can do without. Me included. VERY easily.

These are very good examples of people do not need. They think they do but they don`t.

Yes there are many examples where engineering can be useful, water treatment, electricity (not for the HDTV though) etc.

What people I`ve seen would most need is education, understand what and why it is happening to them. The change will have to come from themselves.

 

You jump from one thought to extreme generalization which does not follow.

All I'm saying is that SOME of the technology we have could be good for humanity if used in the correct manner. If we were to rewind right back to the caveman times, and look through our history since then, surely you will agree, some inventions HAVE made humanity better off, fire, houses, medicines, hunting weapons etc. You can't seriously believe mankind should not have ANY sort of developments at all. I agree things need to be done differently.

Of course some technology is good. Others are downright evil. Weapons?

So you at least agree on the benefits of energy production and space exploration. So who should conduct that space exploration? Should zimbabwe ever hope to do it? or should russia and the US always hold the position of space explorers?

Energy production by burning fossil fuel?
Space exploration?

Just so we'rd absolutely clear and fully understand each other, going back to the hypothetical situation, are you all saying (please each individually answer this), that if Zimbabwe had their revolution, got rid of mugabe, elected a great man as president, change was buzzing in the air, the country was calling for diaspora to make investments and development projects back home and to do all they can for zimbabwe, are you saying you would do NOTHING (except tell them they are better off with no technology), or are you saying that you would be SELECTIVE in what development projects you would work on and invest in, and if the latter, which projects would you and wouldn't you involve yourself in?

You are making a political statement by singling out Mugabe.
There are some foreign administrations that want to see Hugo Chavez gone. Did the jackals get him?

Here again, you move from some technology to NOTHING. That does not follow.

I have friends from third world countries and I often talk about these topics with them and they all say they would love for people to come to their country and make invetsments and help bring the country forward as long as those people don't come to serve anyone elses agenda and come purely for love of those people and to serve those peoples needs.

What does it mean when a foreign company or country makes an "investment" in another country. An investment ultimately means that there is an expectation of return on investment. When does investment become exploitation?

Would you advocate leaving the conditions of the roads and water treatment facilities and pharmaceutical production and hospital treatments and technologies as they are?

I am working on various projects that will improve diagnosis of various conditions and diseases using electronic technology. I have been invited to visit Africa to train persons there on how to do the same. This technology will be transferred directly over with no strings attached. I get no monetary reward for doing this.

Hope that makes you feel better.

 

Georacer thats no problem I have no interest in party politics to be honest, engineering is universal and the planets problems and solutions for us to find will be there regardless of who's in power and this isn't a political forum so I can respect that.

praondevou is your electronics hobby a need or a want? will you be giving it up if its a want? will you be giving up your smart phone and laptop and internet? we will obviously need to practice what we preach or risk sounding hypocritical.

MrChips, no offense but I think its you who is failing to understand my posts as opposed to my posts not actually making any sense. They were clearly explained so I can't go over and reiterate what I've said yet again so please refrain from saying "that doesnt make sense, that doenst make sense, thats a non sequitor, that doesnt make sense" etc. It doesnt really constitute a proper well thought out response.

You have just confirmed that there is indeed valuable technology that you think will benefit the third world, and yes i agree it depends on the circumstances whether its exploitation, unwanted help, or wanted help, but we are only concerned with wanted help and Im sure anyone who benefits from your medical equipment will not complain about you.

But the question now is, you agree some help is beneficial, so a way for a western educated zimbabwean to help in this hypothetical situation (or replace mugabe and zimbabwe for any other ruler and country you see fit), is to bring medical equipment free of charge to Zimbabwe and train people how to use it, but now that immigration laws are so tough, its not very likely we will be seeing western educated people who grew up and worked in the west but still have ties to third world countries, so should they be reliant on the west to bring over medical technology when someone is feeling kind enough, or should they acquire the capabilities of making the technology themselves?

 

If you agree that not ALL technology is bad then we need to determine what is good and what isnt and what is a good method of delivering it and what isnt. What constitutes as exploitation vs genuine assistance. Understanding these ethics is critical to engineers

 

praondevou is your electronics hobby a need or a want? will you be giving it up if its a want? will you be giving up your smart phone and laptop and internet? we will obviously need to practice what we preach or risk sounding hypocritical.

It's a want. I like it. And it's not just a hobby. But yes, if I knew how to make a living doing something else I would do it.

The internet is a medium of communication , I think it's useful. I already gave up a lot of electronic gadgets. They are only keeping us busy, trying to make us forget what really matters. I try to limit I spend time with them to a minimum.

 

If you agree that not ALL technology is bad then we need to determine what is good and what isnt and what is a good method of delivering it and what isnt. What constitutes as exploitation vs genuine assistance. Understanding these ethics is critical to engineers

Now you are starting to make some sense. You cannot separate the ethics from the engineering .

 

It's a want. I like it. And it's not just a hobby. But yes, if I knew how to make a living doing something else I would do it.

The internet is a medium of communication , I think it's useful. I already gave up a lot of electronic gadgets. They are only keeping us busy, trying to make us forget what really matters. I try to limit I spend time with them to a minimum.

ok so internet is a need then? If your answer is yes then presumably network engineers along with electronic engineers and manufacturers to produce the equipment, cables etc would also be needed?

So so far we have medical equipment, network equipment, and power engineering equipment as essential needs. So clearly those are areas that could be contributed. Power engineering is generally a governmental project so I guess you would need to offer your services to the government for that, although private infrastructure and power generation is possible too. You'd also need to train local technicians to understand how to repair and maintain things and you'd also need manufacturing capabilities to make tranformers and things locally.

Network engineering would be releatively simple to design networks for schools, colleges etc, you could just start a private business and take on some local trainees and provide networks for businesses who requested it, the cables and internet systems may be more tricky and would be a large governmental project, not sure if individuals could do these projects by themselves but they can again offer services to the government. Network and Medical Electronics would require a lot of private investment, as you'd need to start by establishing a local component production aswell as capabilities to make the plastic enclosures of equipment, so you'd need silicon refinement, resistor and capacitor production etc. Once you had those, you would need someone who knew how to design the equipment and capabilites for taking the design to manufacture. It would be a very large project. Do you think it would be possible for a third world country to successfulyl complete such a task and what would the roadmap to completing such a project look like?

Does everyone agree so far with the last paragraph on useful technologies and HOW it is actually delivered to the host country? Is there other technologies you'd like to add, methods of delivery, alterations or corrections to what I've written?